89 Langoa Barton / 89 Léoville Barton

[AlexR]

I was served these blind on Friday night.

Knowing that my host's wife works for Ph. de Rothschild, I guessed a) wines from the same appellation (Pauillac), b) Clerc Milon and Mouton R. c) 1994

Well, I was pretty far off....

The difference between the 2 wines is really great although I'm told they're made exactly the same way.

This is the first time I have ever compared 2 aged versions at leisure.

The Langoa seemed slightly thin and in its prime, lacking some flesh and graciousness. It had that "lead pencil" aroma that thew me off track into thinking Pauilac.

The Léoville had more depth and length, but not the oomph, for lack of a better word, that would make me think of a vintage as good as 89. As opposed to the Langoa, the Léoville has years ahead of it but - perhaps because of less-than-perfect storage? - unfortunately did not live up to my expectations.

Best regards,
Alex R.

[AlainB.]

Hi Alex,

Last January we had both wines at a "1989 - 20th anniversary" blind tasting with a group of friends where each of us came along with a few bottles. Both Léovilles (Las Cases and Barton) where among the best wines that night. Langoa was much appreciated even though it lacked a bit concentration and deepness to my view. The most disappointing wine that evening was 1989 Cos d'Estournel..

Cheers

Alain

[Houndsong]

The difference between the 2 wines is really great although I'm told they're made exactly the same way.

That is a very interesting/provocative statement, at least to me on a Tuesday morning in August. If they are in fact made exactly the same way (and I understand they are both made at Langoa) then the difference in the wines (assuming identical storage) is obvious confirmation of the effect of terroir. On the other hand, if one believes that terroir has an important effect on the resulting wine, why would you make two wines from different terroirs "exactly the same way?" Could we call this Houndsong's conundrum or paradox? Of course isn't it the case that, in gross, the classed growths are all made, more or less, the same way? And of course I suppose one reason to make wines from different terroirs exactly the same way would be to highlight this difference.

[Blanquito]

Nice points, Hound. A few other things strike me immediately as different between sites other than terroir even for wines made identically: age of vines, density of vines, and the grape blend ratio.

Also, I've read Turley state something like your final sentence as her wine-making approach for highlighting terroir.

[Claudius]

Houndsong & Alex R,
Not tried the 89 Langoa but have had the 89 Leoville a few years ago.
Very nice user friendly wine.
Not exactly complex but with a round, smooth, slightly sweet flavour.
Some earth, tobacco, cedar and chocolate to balance ripe (not overripe) dark fruits.
The flavour stuck in my mind as it was not the long, cool, firm style of Bordeau, more a modern (I hate that term) style that was easy to drink.

One point of terroir.
The Leoville vineyard has 3 estates and the wines are very different.
Try them side by side and their individual characters are surprisingly different.
Yet it is the SAME vineyard.

Ther are a number of factors not related to vinification and terroir that you (HS) miss, and they all play a major role.
The cepage, vine age, clones and viticultural practices are different in these three estates.
Leoville Las Cases in run by a perfectionist who seeks the best wine the estate can give him.
Barton want more user-friendly wines, the yields are higher than LLC, the vineyard work not as obsessive nor the vinification.

Leoville Poyferre has fgone thru a trasnsiiton in the vineyard and the chais.
Older versions used to be rather rustic - the problem was the rootstocks and vines themselves, and the wines have improved to be equal to (and sometimes better than) LB - though not LLC (at least yet).

I am not opposing terroir; it is however just one of so many factors that affect the wine, and so often those writing about it ignore the impact of the vines themsleves and viticulture.

[AlainB.]

You're certainly right Claudius.
Nevertheless, I think Houndsong's point was more about the differences between the two Barton where crop management and vinification are almost similar, rather than the Léovilles which, as you mentioned, are indeed managed totally separately.

[AlexR]

Hi guys,

I asked my friend (a wine writer) who was kind enough to serve the wines, about Houndsong's remarks.

His answer came in two parts:

1) From Bernarnd Ginestet's book on Saint-Julien:

"Bien que Léoville-Bartton et Langoa réunissent beaucoup de
caractéristiques communes, leurs vins ne se ressemblent pas. En effet,
leurs types pourraient s'apparenter davantage puisqu'ils sont
immédiatement voisins sur le terroir de Saint-Julien, les proportions
des variétés de cépages sont les mêmes, la viticulture est pratiquée
de la même façon, comme le reste des opérations au cuvier et au chai.
On observe ici, par une illustration exemplaire (et, à ma
connaissance, unique dans tout le Médoc), combien les facteurs "micro-
agrologiques" jouent un rôle déterminant dans les qualités
potentielles d'un grand cru. Il faut aussi saluer la conscience du
propriétaire, qui a toujours respecté l'individualité des deux
étiquettes et qui lui fait comme un point d'honneur de laisser à la
nature le soin d'accentuer plus ou moins cette différenciation."

2) My friend's remarks:
During one visit to the property I once asked what the differences
between the two vineyards were, and was told that the vines for
Léoville Barton are situated more to the north where there is a
greater concentration of gravel; Langoa Barton's soil has a greater
amount of clay.

Best regards,
Alex R.

[rjsussex]

I think that gravel/clay point explains everything that I too have noticed about the differences between the 2 Bartons. The other difference, at least from my notes, is that Leoville's improvement dates from the early 90s and Langoa's from about 02.

Richard

[Houndsong]

Right I was referring to the two Bartons (don't know if Langoa is contiguous with the Leovilles) and not the three Leovilles. It was always my very casual understanding that Leo B. and Langoa were made at Langoa and that the two parcels were treated very similarly in terms of vineyard management. Those are good points about vine age, clone and the cepage. I would assume that if Langoa is more clayey, this equates to more merlot in the blend. Even so, one can make a very, for lack of a better word, "powerful" wine with higher percentages of merlot in the blend. So I would still conclude that Langoa's terroir just does not give the same oomph to the grapes as Leo B's.

[Jon Burdick]

Is the blend the same? I thought the vineyards at Langoa had about 10% cab franc, and Leoville-Barton has no cab franc but more petit verdot, but I don't know the specific blend.

[AlainB.]

The blend is very similar Jon.

Langoa: 70% Cabernet-Sauvignon, 25% Merlot and 5% Cabernet Franc
Léoville: 73% C-S, 23% M, 4% C-F.

Production process at both properties are under supervision of Barton's Technical Director Michel Raoult. Vinification and aging (50% in new oak barrels for 20 months) are similar and done at the same place too (Château Langoa).

[Houndsong]

So this is very interesting to me at least. At some point after a change in control of these properties a new owner may look at the disparity in pricing between Langoa and Leo B. and change something, since it would seem that the cost to produce each wine is the same. And of course the decision would be either to sell off Langoa or perhaps to change how it is made and sex it up into a HWSNBN-type wine so it can garner another point or two and another $20-40 a bottle. Wouldn't these course be more economically rational?